Chandler#81 Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 Icy conditions no factor http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/02/02/conti...dex.html?hpt=T2
Captain Hindsight Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 I heard that before....such a shame tho
KD in CA Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 Not a surprise, as that was the assumption from the start. John Kausner, who wore a button with a picture of his daughter Elly, said the accident revealed to the public that there are two standards for commercial aviation -- one for the major airlines and a lesser standard for regional airlines. This is an interesting point. While I don't agree that there is a 'different standard', there certainly is -- as with any business -- a level of seniority and experience that varies based on the job. We used to joke about the 'C' students from flight school piloting the prop planes we took from NYC to Syracuse back in the early 90s. You're a lot more likely to get a young, less experienced guy if you are taking the late night flight from Newark to Buffalo. It also doesn't help that the pipeline of USAF pilots has shrunk considerably from prior generations.
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 Icy conditions no factor http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/02/02/conti...dex.html?hpt=T2 Didn't the icy conditions cause the stall?
Chandler#81 Posted February 2, 2010 Author Posted February 2, 2010 Didn't the icy conditions cause the stall? I don't understand this either.. At the time, the plane was experiencing icy conditions, but investigators said Tuesday ice was not a factor in the crash.
Skunkpost Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 Didn't the icy conditions cause the stall? Lack of airspeed caused the stall, not lack of lift due to ice buildup. Dropping the gear and the flaps put the nail in the coffin.
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 Lack of airspeed caused the stall, not lack of lift due to ice buildup. Dropping the gear and the flaps put the nail in the coffin. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, if their approach was otherwise okay. I haven't heard any reports that they slowed the plane down below a safe airspeed, at least.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 Sign of the times? Didn't they say that the cockpit was not sterile either?
PromoTheRobot Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 There is definitely two standards for pilots. One are experienced, well-paid and treated with some respect. The others lack experience, are underpaid, made to work crazy hours. The big airlines hire pilots with years of military training and experience with large planes. Your tax dollars pay to train them and bad pilots get weeded out early. The other track are kids who go to aviation school. Many of these schools cost and arm and a leg and when they graduate they are in debt and have to work for the regional carriers that pay jack squat. Few have any weeding out process. While no one expects to be paid a lot when you are starting out, the hours you are made to work are crazy. It's bad enough to have inexperienced pilots. Having inexperienced, fatigued and sleep-deprived pilots is worse. PTR
Steely Dan Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 It's amazing that the pilot pulled when he should have pushed and that was the cause of the accident. You'd think they'd have some sort of system to tell him he's doing the wrong thing. Link Washington (CNN) -- Confronted with signs that his plane was entering an aerodynamic stall, the pilot of Continental Flight 3407 pulled on the plane's control column when he should have pushed -- a simple but inexplicable error that led to the death of 50 people, the National Transportation Safety Board ruled Tuesday evening. The board's ruling, coming a year after the crash near Buffalo, New York, is stark in its simplicity. NTSB members say the accident laid bare a complex myriad of safety problems at the nation's regional airlines and some that extend to major carriers. Among the problems: -- Airlines that do not adequately train pilots to handle stalls. -- Pilots who engage in unnecessary conversations during takeoffs and landings. -- Record-keeping systems that allow pilots to conceal failed tests. -- Pilot fatigue. The safety board issued more than 20 recommendations at the conclusion of the hearing.
gmac17 Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 so they crashed 27 seconds after the warning about a stall? and it sounds like at no point did they figure out what they were doing wrong and correct it. (though I guess they could have been out of control a few seconds into the warning). horrible.
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 Didn't the icy conditions cause the stall? I don't understand this either.. At the time, the plane was experiencing icy conditions, but investigators said Tuesday ice was not a factor in the crash. A dash 8 has de icing equipment, and is certified for flying into known icing conditions. Ice would not have been a factor. Lack of airspeed caused the stall, not lack of lift due to ice buildup. Dropping the gear and the flaps put the nail in the coffin. Actually the report I read said they retractedthe flaps, a real no-no at low airspeed. A wing can fly at a lower air speed with flaps then a clean wing; bringing them up may change a flying wing into a stalled one Actually I find this whole incident unbelievable. Stall recognition/recovery is some thing a 5 hour student pilot understands. I suspect they may have come in high on final, and slowed the plane excessively to save the landing, rather then execute a missed approach, which is going to climb power, flying in a circle and trying again.
zow2 Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 It really is unbelievable how badly the two pilots messed up. He pulled back on the control column when the system was automatically trying to push the nose down to gain airpspeed. Meanwhile, while he is doing that, she is retracting the flaps which again, is exactly the opposite thing to do. This coupled with the other factors (i.e. fatigue, non-sterile cockpit, etc..) I was reading some comments in the USA Today and people were upset that the NTSB was taking the easy way out and blaming the pilots. I don't understand that. They ARE to blame. They royally screwed up and killed themselves and a planeload of people?!? Yes, Colgan is responsible too for hiring them and training,,,but still, these two should not have been piloting a commercial aircraft.
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 A dash 8 has de icing equipment, and is certified for flying into known icing conditions. Ice would not have been a factor. And I remember reading that the de-icing equipment was improperly used. I'm not disputing pilot error, mind you...but I thought a significant part of that error was not properly responding to the icing conditions.
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 And I remember reading that the de-icing equipment was improperly used. I'm not disputing pilot error, mind you...but I thought a significant part of that error was not properly responding to the icing conditions. Well that would constitute pilot error right there, using the de-icing equipment properly is their responsibility. The thing that gets me about this is going into a stall is glaringly obvious to the pilot. The wings shake, the stall horn is going off, and the controls are mushy. Pitch down and buid some airspeed. I would rather land short then dump it straight down from 1000 feet.
zow2 Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 I already wrote about blaming the pilot(s), but i can see how sheer human reaction comes into play. I mean they were only at 2,000 feet or less over a very dark part of Clarence in misty/light precip conditions. To point the nose towards the ground, knowing you are that low probably goes against every human instinct. They probably saw a couple streetlights, and that's about it for ground reference. I think we've all flown in to BUF from that direction and it's pretty damn low over Clarence. I blame the crew...but man, i can see why his instant reaction was to try to pull the plane level. I guess that's where lack of experience and airmanship comes into play. You gotta be one cool customer to react quickly and calmly out of that situation.
KD in CA Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 You gotta be one cool customer to react quickly and calmly out of that situation. And if you aren't, you have no business being anywhere near a cockpit.
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 I already wrote about blaming the pilot(s), but i can see how sheer human reaction comes into play. I mean they were only at 2,000 feet or less over a very dark part of Clarence in misty/light precip conditions. To point the nose towards the ground, knowing you are that low probably goes against every human instinct. They probably saw a couple streetlights, and that's about it for ground reference. I think we've all flown in to BUF from that direction and it's pretty damn low over Clarence. I blame the crew...but man, i can see why his instant reaction was to try to pull the plane level. I guess that's where lack of experience and airmanship comes into play. You gotta be one cool customer to react quickly and calmly out of that situation. It was a IFR flight. no need to even look out the windscreen.just stay on the glide slope. And that is a basic part of pilot training-trust the gauges, not what your mind tells you. They never get confused.
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 Well that would constitute pilot error right there, using the de-icing equipment properly is their responsibility. Which is what I said. That WOULD make icing a contributing factor, though, since in that case it would cause the problem they didn't react to (or inappropriately reacted to). The thing that gets me about this is going into a stall is glaringly obvious to the pilot. The wings shake, the stall horn is going off, and the controls are mushy. Pitch down and buid some airspeed. I would rather land short then dump it straight down from 1000 feet. Hopefully. Different planes have different stall characteristics. Still...if you're flying a plane in which you can't recognize a stall, you shouldn't be flying the plane. Or you're just not paying attention. And to pull the nose up in a stall? There's millions of owners of Microsoft Flight Simulator that know better than that...
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 I already wrote about blaming the pilot(s), but i can see how sheer human reaction comes into play. I mean they were only at 2,000 feet or less over a very dark part of Clarence in misty/light precip conditions. To point the nose towards the ground, knowing you are that low probably goes against every human instinct. They probably saw a couple streetlights, and that's about it for ground reference. I think we've all flown in to BUF from that direction and it's pretty damn low over Clarence. I blame the crew...but man, i can see why his instant reaction was to try to pull the plane level. I guess that's where lack of experience and airmanship comes into play. You gotta be one cool customer to react quickly and calmly out of that situation. 4000-5000 feet, actually. If they were on the proper glide slope for the approach to Buffalo Airport, that's roughly the altitude they'd be over Clarence Center.
Recommended Posts